Methods and systems using multiple watermarks

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 6744906
  • Patent Number
    6,744,906
  • Date Filed
    Friday, December 7, 2001
    23 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, June 1, 2004
    20 years ago
Abstract
Two or more digital watermarks, with different characteristics, are embedded in a document. The characteristics are chosen so that the watermarks will be affected in different manners if the document is subsequently copied or reproduced. The detection process or mechanism reads two or more of the watermarks and compares their characteristics. While wear and handling may change the characteristics of the digital watermarks in a document, the relationship between the characteristics of the multiple digital watermarks in a document will nevertheless give an indication as to whether a document is an original or a copy of an original. Document wear can be independently assessed and used as an aid in interpreting the detected watermark characteristics.
Description




FIELD OF THE INVENTION




The present invention relates to steganography, and more particularly relates to the use of multiple watermarks to determine the authenticity or history of a particular document or electronic object (e.g., image, motion picture, audio track).




BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION




Steganographic and digital watermarking technologies are well known. For example see U.S. Pat. No. 5,636,292 and the extensive references cited therein. Also see co-pending patent applications Ser. No. 08/327,426 which was filed Oct. 10, 1994 and co-pending application Ser. No. 08/436,134 which was filed May 8, 1995.




The technology for inserting digital watermarks in images and the technology for reading or detecting digital watermarks in images is well developed, well known and described in detail in public literature. Furthermore, there are commercially available products which include programs or mechanisms for inserting digital watermarks into images. For example the commercially available and widely used products “Adobe Photoshop” which is marketed by Adobe Corporation of San Jose Calif. and “Corel Draw” program which is marked by Corel Corporation of Ontario Canada, include a facility for inserting digital watermarks into images.




The technology for making high quality copies of documents is widely available. The technical quality of scanners and color printers has been increasing rapidly. Today for a relatively low cost one can purchase a high quality scanner and a high quality color printer. Thus, it is becoming increasingly easy to duplicate documents. The ability to create high quality copies has created a need for technology which can differentiate between original documents and copies of the original.




It is known that watermarks can be used to help differentiate genuine documents from copies. However, the prior art techniques for using digital watermarks to differentiate genuine documents from copies have serious limitations. The present invention is directed to an improved technique for using steganography and digital watermark technology to facilitate differentiating original documents from copies of the original.




The present invention can also be used for various other purposes such as to embed multiple types of information in a single document or to provide watermarks that enable documents to perform special functions.




SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION




With the present invention multiple digital watermarks, each of which has a different character, are embedded in a document. The characters of the two watermarks are chosen so that the watermarks will be affected in different manners by what may subsequently happen to the document.




The detection process or mechanism reads the two digital watermarks and compares their characteristics. While wear and handling may change the characteristics of the individual watermarks, the relationship between the characteristic of the two watermarks will never-the-less give an indication as to whether a document is an original or a copy of an original.




For example according to the present invention two digital watermarks in a document may have different energy levels. The absolute energy level of a digital watermark in an original image may be decreased if a document is subject to wear. Likewise the energy level of the digital watermark in an image may be decreased if an image is scanned and reprinted on a color printer. However, the relationship between the energy level of the two digital watermarks will be different in an image that has been subject to wear and in a reproduced image. Likewise if two digital watermarks are introduced into an image where the bit pattern used to construct the digital watermarks have different patterns, the ratio between the signal to noise ratio of the watermarks will be different in an original subject to wear and in a copy generated by scanning the original and printing the scanned image. Other characteristics of multiple digital watermarks can also be used to differentiate original documents from copies.




In other embodiments, a watermark-independent assessment of wear can be performed, and the results used to aid in differentiating original documents from copies.











BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES





FIG. 1

shows the paths that a document and a copy may follow.





FIGS. 2A and 2B

show a fine grain and a course grain watermark.





FIGS. 3A and 3B

show a geometrically linear and a geometrically random assignment of pixels to a bit in a digital watermark.





FIG. 4

illustrates a fourth embodiment of the invention.





FIGS. 5A-B

illustrates a document wear value.











DETAILED DESCRIPTION




The problem of differentiating an original document from a copy is made more difficult in situations where the original document is subject to being handled, worn, folded and otherwise damaged. Many original documents such as identification documents and currency are extensively handled. The wear to which such documents is subjected reduces the quality of images on the document and therefore reduces the quality of any information embedded in the document using conventional steganographic techniques.




With the present invention, a number of different watermarks are embedded in a document. Each of the watermarks embedded in the document has a different character. All watermarks are somewhat affected when a document is subjected to wear, and all watermarks are somewhat affected when a document is duplicated by being scanned and reprinted. However, the magnitude of the effect caused by being scanned and reprinted on watermarks with certain characteristics is much greater than the effect on watermarks with different characteristics. Likewise, wear and handling of a document affects watermarks with certain characteristics much more than it affects watermarks with different characteristics.




Thus, if multiple watermarks with different characteristics are inserted into a document, it is possible to differentiate a copy from an original document that has been subjected to wear by examining the ratios of characteristics of the watermarks in the image being examined.




In order to print a document on a color printer, the document is put through a transformation from a color space such as the RGB color space to a different color space such as the CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) color space. Such transformations are well known. For example see chapter 3 entitled “Color Spaces” in a book entitled “Video Demystified, A handbook for the Digital Engineer,” Second Edition, by Keith Jack, published by Harris Semiconductor/Hightext Publications of San Diego, Calif., and “The Color PC” by Marc Miller and published by the Hayden Press.




When an image is transformed from one color space to another color space, noise is introduced into the image. Among the reasons for this is the fact that each color space has its own distinctive gamut (or range) of colors. Where the gamut of two color spaces overlap, the conversion from one color space to another color space can in theory be precise. However, there will be some areas that are in the gamut of one color space but not in the gamut of another color space. Such situations definitely introduce noise into the conversion process. Even in areas that are in the gamut of two color spaces, conversion from one color space to another color space introduces noise because of such things as round off errors. The present invention takes advantage of the fact that if an original is copied and then a copy is printed, the image on the printed copy will have gone through several conversions to which the original will not have been subjected. For example, the conversions to which a copy may be subjected are:




1) a document to RGB conversion (i.e. scanning the document into the computer),




2) a RGB to CMYK conversion,




3) a CMYK to copy conversion (i.e. printing the document).




Any characteristics of the two digital watermarks that will be affected differently by the additional conversion process to which copies are subjected can be used to differentiate copies from an original. Since the two watermarks with different characteristics are affected in a different manner by the additional conversion step, a comparison of the characteristics of the two watermarks in a document being examined will indicate if the document is an original (which has not gone through the additional conversions) or a copy which has gone through the additional conversions. While the characteristics of each watermark will have been changed by wear and by the copying process, the comparison between the characteristics of the two watermarks will still be able to differential a copy from an original.




Four embodiments of the invention are described below. Each of the embodiments utilizes two watermarks in a document. The differences between the two watermarks in the document are as follows:




In the first embodiment:




First watermark: Has fine grain




Second watermark: Has a course grain




In the second embodiment:




First watermark: Has geometrically linear assignment of pixels




Second watermark: Has geometrically random assignment of pixels.




In the third embodiment:




First watermark: Has low power




Second watermark: Has higher power




In the fourth embodiment:




First watermark: uses standard RGB to HSI and HSI to RGB transformations




Second watermark is biased before being transformed from HSI to RGB.





FIG. 1

shows the steps to which documents and copies are typically subjected. In the normal course, a document


10


may be subjected to handling and wear


11


resulting in a worn document


10


A. Document


10


may also be scanned as illustrated by box


12


. The scanning produces a digital image that can be printed, as illustrated by box


13


. The printed image may be subjected to handling and wear


14


resulting in a copy


10


B. It is noted that the document


10


may also be subject to handling and wear prior to the scanning operation


12


. The task to which this invention is directed is the task of differentiating the worn document


10


A from the copy


10


B.




The document


10


includes an image (not explicitly shown) that has two digital watermarks inserted therein. In the first embodiment of the invention, the first watermark has a fine grain and the second watermark has a course grain. The grain of the two watermarks is illustrated in FIG.


2


.

FIG. 2A

shows the grain of the first watermark and

FIG. 2B

shows the grain of the second watermark. The first watermark uses blocks of 9 pixels (a 3 by 3 block). Each of the pixels in each 9 pixel block has its gray value changed by the same amount. For example

FIG. 2A

shows that the first 9 pixel block has its gray value increase and the second 9 pixel block has its gray value decreased. The amount of increase and the selection of blocks that is increased and decreased is conventional.




As shown in

FIG. 2B

, the grain of the second watermark is in blocks that are 6 pixels by 6 pixels or 36 pixels. All of the pixels in each 36 pixel block are changed by the same amount.




In the original document


10


, the two watermarks have power ratios of 1 to 1. After wear and handling, the power of the first watermark will be degraded somewhat more than the power of the second watermark. For example, as illustrated in

FIG. 1

, after document


10


is subjected to handling and wear, a detector which reads the watermarks might find that the power ratio of the water marks is 1 to 2.




If the document


10


is scanned and the resulting digital image is printed to make a copy of the document


10


, the ratio of the power of the watermarks will be affected much more than the effect of handling and wear. For example as illustrated in

FIG. 1

, the power ratio of the watermarks may be 1 to 10, thereby allowing one to differentiate the worn original document


10


A from the copy


10


B.




It is noted that the mechanism for inserting watermarks into an image is well known, as is the technique for reading a watermark and using correlation techniques to determine the signal to noise ratio (i.e. the power) of a watermark.





FIGS. 3A and 3B

show an alternative technique for implementing the present invention. In the second embodiment of the invention, the two watermarks inserted into the image on a document have different patterns of assigning pixels to the bits of the payload represented by the watermark. The first watermark utilizes a geometrically linear assignment of pixels to each bit. For example

FIG. 3A

shows an image that has 500 by 500 pixels. Considering a watermark payload with 50 bits, each bit of the watermark would have 5000 pixels assigned to represent that bit. A linear assignment could have each fifth bit in each row (100 bits per row) and each fifth row (50 rows) assigned to each bit of the watermark. Thus 5000 pixels would be assigned to each bit in a very orderly or linear manner.




In the second watermark the pixels would be assigned to each bit in a random manner as shown in FIG.


3


B. Each bit in the watermark would still have 5000 assigned bits; however, the pixels would be a random location over the image. Naturally it should be understood that

FIGS. 3A and 3B

illustrate how pixels are assigned to one bit of the watermark. The other bits of the watermarks would have pixels assigned in a similar manner.




Similar to the first embodiment of the invention, the watermark with a linear assignment of pixels and the watermark with a random assignment of pixels would be affected differently by handling and wear on the original document than they would be by being scanned and reprinted.




The third embodiment of the invention described herein utilizes watermarks that have different power levels. Handling and wear as contrasted to scanning and printing would affect a watermark with a low power level differently than a watermark with a high power level. Watermarks with different power levels can be inserted into a document in order to practice the present invention utilizing commercially available programs such as Adobe Photoshop or Corel Draw. In the Adobe Photoshop and Corel Draw programs, the power or intensity of the watermark can be adjusted by setting a simple control setting in the program.




The fourth embodiment of the invention introduces different characteristics into two watermarks by modifications made to one of the watermarks during the initial step during which the watermarks are introduced into an image. The operation of the fourth embodiment can be explained as shown in FIG.


4


. First as illustrated by equation 1 there is a conversion from RGB to HSI as is conventional. This is illustrated by equation 1. As illustrated by equation 2, the first watermark is inserted into the image in a conventional manner by modifying the I value in the HSI representation of the image using the first watermark values (designated as WM


1


Δ). A first RGB value designated RGB(


1


) is then calculated using a conventional transformation designated T. As indicated by equation 3, the second watermark WM


2


is then biased toward a particular color and the biased watermark is then combined with the HSI values and transformed to a second set of RGB values designated RGB(


2


). Finally as indicated by equation 4, the values RGB(


1


) and RGB(


2


) are combined to form the watermarked image designated RGB(F).




The transform used to go from RGB to HSI color space (indicated in equation 1 in

FIG. 4

) can be anyone of a variety of known other techniques. For example, the RGB to HSI conversion can be one of the techniques explained in the above referenced text book such as the following: (which assumes that RGB and Intensity have a value range of 0 to I and that Red equals 0°):




First calculate:




M=max (R,G,B)




m=min (R,G,B)




r=(M−R)/(M−m)




g=(M−G)/(M−n)




b=(M−B)/(M−m)




Then calculate I, S, and H as follows:




a) I=(M+M)/2




b) if M=m then S=0 and H=180




if I<or=0.5 then S=(M−m)/(M+m)




if I>0.5 then S=(M−m)/(2−M−m)




c) if R=M then H=60 (b−g)




if G=M then H=60(2+r−b)




if B=M then H=60(4+g−r)




if H>or=360 then H=H−360




if H<0 then H=H+360




The first watermark in inserted into the RGB values in a conventional manner by modifying the I value of appropriate pixels so as to combine the watermark Δ values with HSI values. This is indicated by equation 2 in FIG.


4


. Next as indicated by equation 3 in

FIG. 4

, the HSI values are converted to RGB values using a transform “T”. The transform “T” can be conventional and it can for example be done as follows:




First calculate:




if I<or=0.5 then M=I(I+S)




if I>0.5 then M=I+S−IS




m=2I−M




if S=0 then R=G=B=I and H=180°




Then calculate R, G and B as follows:




a) if H<60 then R=M




if H<120 then R=m+((M−m)/((120−H)/60))




if H<240 then R=m




if H<300 then R=m+((M−m)/((H−240/60))




otherwise R=M




b) if H<60 then G=m+((M−m)/(H/60))




if H<180 then G=M




if H<240 then G=m+((M−m)/((240−H





/60))




otherwise G=m




c) if H<120 then B=m




if H<180 then B=m+((M−m)/((H−120/60))




if H<300 then B=M




otherwise B=m+((M−m)/((360−H)/60))




Next the values which represent a second watermark are used to calculate a second set of RGB values designated RGB


2


. In order to calculate RGB


2


, the values of H and S are modified so that they are slightly biased toward a particular color designated H


1


and S


1


New values for H and S are calculated as follows:




(Note, H


1


must be between 0 and 360, S


1


must be non-negative and can be between 0 and 1 and X is a value between 0 and 1)




Calculate new values for H and S as follows:




If H>H


1


then H=H−(H−H


1


)x




else H=H+(H


1


−H)x




If S>S


1


then S=S−(S−S


1


)x




else S=S+(S


1


−S)x




Next add the second watermark to the values of HSI and transform these values to the RGB color space as indicated by equation 3 The transformation from HSI color space to RGB color space is done as previously indicated.




Finally as indicated by equation 4 in

FIG. 4

, the final RGB value (designated RGBF) is calculated by combining the values of RGB


1


and RGB


2


. This combination can be done in a variety of known ways.




It is noted that in the above example the difference between the transformation used for the first and the second watermarks involves biasing the values of H and S. Alternatively a wide variety of different changes could also be made. The key to this fourth embodiment of the invention is that in effect a different transformation is used for the first and the second watermarks.




In more sophisticated embodiments, the wear of the document can be independently assessed and used to aid in distinguishing an original from a copy.




There may be cases in which the wear-based degradation to the watermarks in a worn but original document can yield results similar to the scan/print degradation to the watermarks in a crisp copy. For example, consider the case of an original document having watermarks A and B of equal energy, but tailored so that watermark B is more frail and falls-off rapidly in energy when photocopied. On finding a suspect document with a ratio of energy between the two documents in excess of 2:1 (or a commensurate difference in signal-to-noise ratios), a counterfeit may be presumed. However, this ratio may also result from extreme wear of an original document. See, e.g., the watermark strength v. wear chart of

FIGS. 5A and 5B

for an original document, and the same document after scanning on a 600 dpi scanner and printing on a 720 dpi printer. The original document degrades to a watermark energy ratio of 2:1 at point x. A crisp copy has the same ratio, resulting in a potential ambiguity.




To distinguish these two cases, the wear of the document can be assessed. Various means can be used to distinguish document wear. One is high frequency content, as can be determined by high pass filtering the document image data, or performing an FFT, DCT, etc. A worn document typically loses some high frequency energy. Another is contrast—a worn document typically loses contrast. Still another is color gamut—a worn document may fade to a less varied gamut. Still another is luminance—the soiling of a document can decrease the overall document brightness. Yet another is physical integrity—a worn document droops when only partially supported. Yet another means is a quick human assessment of wear, with human entry of a corresponding datum into a system (e.g., on a wear scale of 0 to 10, or simply “crisp,” “used,” or “very worn”). Still other means can similarly be employed.




The wear can be graded on an arbitrary scale, depending on the particular measurement means used. In an illustrative case, wear may range from 0 (“crisp”) to 7(extreme). In the

FIG. 5

example, the x point may be at wear value 5. In distinguishing the documents, a look-up table, microprocessor-implemented algorithm, or other arrangement can be provided that takes as its input the ratio and wear values, and produces outputs, e.g., as follows:

























Wear = 0




Wear = 1




Wear = 2




Wear = 3




Wear = 4




Wear = 5




Wear = 6




Wear = 7
































Ratio =




Original




Original




Original




Original




Error?




Error?




Error?




Error?






1.0






Ratio




Original




Original




Original




Original




Original




Error?




Error?




Error?






1.25






Ratio =




Original




Original




Original




Original




Original




Original




Error?




Error?






1.5






Ratio =




Copy




Copy




Original




Original




Original




Original




Original




Error?






1.75






Ratio =




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Original




Original




Original




Original






2.0






Ratio =




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Original




Original




Original






2.25






Ratio =




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Original




Original






2.5






Ratio =




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Original




Original






2.75






Ratio =




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Original






3.0






Ratio =>




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy




Copy






3.25














(The “Error?” outputs corresponds to cases that should not occur in actual practice, e.g., a very worn document in which the ratio of watermarks is 1.0.)




While four embodiments and a further enhancement of the invention have been shown herein, it should be understood that many other characteristics and attributes of a digital watermark could be used to practice the present invention in addition to the characteristics and attributes described herein. Furthermore other known digital watermarking techniques can be used together with and applied to the digital watermarks used for the present invention. It is also noted that while in the above examples only two watermarks were used; in some situations one could use three, four five or more watermarks. That is, the embodiments of the invention specifically described herein utilize two watermarks. It should be understood that any number of watermarks could be utilized in like manner. Furthermore while the embodiments shown herein utilize two separate watermarks, the two watermarks used to practice the present invention could be combined into one watermark which has a plurality of separate identifiable and measurable characteristics.




Still further, while the invention was particularly illustrated with reference to watermarking that is effected in the pixel domain, the same techniques are likewise applicable to watermarking effected in the DCT, wavelet, or other domain (e.g., as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,930,369). Moreover, some documents may include watermarks effected in two different domains (e.g., pixel and DCT).




Still further, the different watermarks can be of entirely different types. For example, one watermark can comprise slight alterations to the image normally printed on a document, and the second can comprise a texture formed on the document substrate, or a background weave or tint pattern—both of which convey watermark data. (Examples of texture-, weave- and tint-based watermarks are shown, e.g., in copending applications Ser. Nos. 09/074,034 (filed May 6, 1998), 09/127,502 (filed Jul. 31, 1998), 09/151,492 (filed Sep. 11, 1998), U.S. Pat. No. 5,850,481, and laid-open PCT publication WO 99/53428.




It is noted that while the present invention utilizes multiple watermarks with different characteristics to differentiate original documents from copies of the original, one can also utilizes multiple watermarks with different characteristics for other reasons. Documents may include multiple similar watermarks in addition to the watermarks having different characteristics according to the present invention. As used herein, the term “document” generally refers to a physical entity. However, the same methodologies can also be applied to purely digital images—e.g., to detect losses that an image has suffered through a lossy compression/decompression process such as JPEG or MPEG, color re-balancing, etc., and thereby discern something about the history of a digital image.




It will be recognized that the principles of the invention can be incorporated into an apparatus used at cash registers and other points of sale to assess the genuineness of banknotes, food stamps, coupons, and other documents. Such an apparatus can include a scanning 1D, or stationary 2D image sensor (e.g., CMOS or CCD), and a microprocessor suitably programmed to discern first and second watermarks in image data provided by the sensor (as well as wear, if desired). (In some cases, a stationary 1D sensor may be employed.) Such apparatus further includes an output device—such as a display screen, indicator light, audible tone, voice synthesizer, or equivalent device—to provide an appraisal of the document's validity based on the sensed information.




A similar apparatus can be provided for use by Customs officials at ports of entry to check merchandise tags, packaging, labels, and other printed indicia associated with clothing, purses, electronic components, software, and other readily-counterfeitable goods, to determine whether the sensed tag/package/label is an original, or a copy. While such a determination may not provide the confidence needed to seize a shipment as counterfeit, it could flag the goods as suspect and needing further inspection and/or forensic analysis.




The idea in each of the foregoing apparatuses is, of course, to provide an indication of possible non-genuineness more reliable than the typical casual and semi-casual human inspection during very fast point-of-sale transactions and other similar high traffic volume situations, where it is unrealistic to expect human observation to be efficient “flaggers” of suspect product and documents.




To provide a comprehensive disclosure without unduly lengthening this specification, applicants incorporate by reference the documents (including applications) cited above.




While the present invention has been described with respect to four specific embodiments of the invention, it should be understood that various changes in forma and detail could be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. The scope of the present invention is limited only by the appended claims.



Claims
  • 1. A method of determining whether a document is likely an original document, the document comprising a first steganographic watermark and a second steganographic watermark, said method comprising:reading a first characteristic related to the first steganographic watermark; reading a second characteristic related to the second steganographic watermark; reading a third characteristic related to the document's physical condition; and with reference to the first, second and third characteristics, assessing whether the document is likely an original document.
  • 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the physical condition comprises at least one of wear, handling and soiling.
  • 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first characteristic and the second characteristic each comprise a power level.
  • 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first characteristic and the second characteristic each comprise a grain level.
  • 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first characteristic comprises a first geometric assignment of pixels and the second characteristic comprises a second geometric assignment of pixels.
  • 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first characteristic comprises a color transformation characteristic and the second characteristic comprises at least a first bias characteristic.
  • 7. A method for determining whether a printed object is likely an original printed object, the printed object comprising at least a first digital watermark and a second digital watermark, said method comprising:detecting a first characteristic related to the first digital watermark; detecting a second characteristic related to the second digital watermark; and comparing the first characteristic and the second characteristic to determine whether the printed object is likely an original printed object.
  • 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the first characteristic and the second characteristic each comprise a power level.
  • 9. The method according to claim 8, wherein a comparison of the first power level and the second power level comprises a power ratio.
  • 10. The method according to claim 7, further comprising the step of detecting a third characteristic related to the document's physical condition.
  • 11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the document's physical condition comprises at least one of wear, handling and soiling.
  • 12. A document including a substrate with printing thereon, the printing comprising at least a first steganographic watermark and a second steganographic watermark, the first steganographic watermark corresponding with a first characteristic and the second steganographic watermark corresponding with a second characteristic, wherein the first and second characteristics are affected in a different manner when the document is subjected to a first corruption process.
  • 13. The document of claim 12, wherein the first corruption process includes wear, and wherein the first and second characteristics are affected in a different manner when the document is subjected to a second corruption process, and wherein the second corruption process includes scanning and printing.
  • 14. The document of claim 12, wherein the first corruption process comprises a color transformation.
  • 15. The document of claim 14, wherein the first characteristic comprises a first color.
  • 16. The document of claim 14, wherein the second characteristic comprises a second color.
  • 17. The document of claim 16, wherein the second color is out of gamut with respect to the first color.
  • 18. The document of claim 14, wherein the color transformation comprises scanning.
  • 19. The document of claim 14, wherein the color transformation comprises a digital transformation.
  • 20. The document of claim 14, wherein the color transformation comprises printing.
  • 21. A method of making a printed document so as to allow differentiation of the printed document from a copy of the printed document, the printed document to include a substrate and printing on the substrate, said method comprising steps of:receiving artwork including at least a first steganographic watermark and a second steganographic watermark, the first steganographic watermark corresponding with a first characteristic and the second steganographic watermark corresponding with a second characteristic, wherein the first and second characteristics are affected in a different manner when the document is subjected to a first corruption process; and printing the artwork on the substrate.
  • 22. The method of claim 21, wherein the first corruption process includes wear, and wherein the first and second characteristics are affected in a different manner when the document is subjected to a second corruption process, and wherein the second corruption process includes scanning and printing.
  • 23. The method of claim 21, wherein the first corruption process comprises a color transformation.
  • 24. The method of claim 23, wherein the first characteristic comprises a first color.
  • 25. The method of claim 23, wherein the second characteristic comprises a second color.
  • 26. The method of claim 25, wherein the second color is out of gamut with respect to the first color.
  • 27. The method of claim 25, wherein the printed document comprises an identification document.
  • 28. The method of claim 23, wherein the color transformation comprises scanning.
  • 29. The method of claim 23, wherein the color transformation comprises a digital transformation.
  • 30. The method of claim 23, wherein the color transformation comprises printing.
  • 31. The method of claim 21, wherein the artwork comprises at least image data.
  • 32. The method of claim 21, wherein the artwork comprises at least background texture.
  • 33. The method of claim 31, wherein the artwork comprises at least background texture and image data.
  • 34. The method of claim 21, wherein the printed document comprises an identification document.
RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of co-pending application Ser. No. 09/433,104, filed Nov. 3, 1999 which is a continuation in part of co-pending application Ser. No. 09/234,780, filed Jan. 20, 1999, which is a continuation in part of application 60/071,983 filed Jan. 20, 1998.

US Referenced Citations (434)
Number Name Date Kind
3493674 Houghton Feb 1970 A
3569619 Simjian Mar 1971 A
3576369 Wick et al. Apr 1971 A
3585290 Sanford Jun 1971 A
3655162 Yamamoto et al. Apr 1972 A
3703628 Philipson, Jr. Nov 1972 A
3809806 Walker et al. May 1974 A
3838444 Loughlin et al. Sep 1974 A
3914877 Hines Oct 1975 A
3922074 Ikegami et al. Nov 1975 A
3971917 Maddox et al. Jul 1976 A
3977785 Harris Aug 1976 A
3982064 Barnaby Sep 1976 A
3984624 Waggener Oct 1976 A
4025851 Haselwood et al. May 1977 A
4184700 Greenaway Jan 1980 A
4225967 Miwa et al. Sep 1980 A
4230990 Lert, Jr. et al. Oct 1980 A
4231113 Blasbalg Oct 1980 A
4238849 Gassmann Dec 1980 A
4252995 Schmidt et al. Feb 1981 A
4262329 Bright et al. Apr 1981 A
4296326 Haslop et al. Oct 1981 A
4297729 Steynor et al. Oct 1981 A
4313197 Maxemchuk Jan 1982 A
4367488 Leventer et al. Jan 1983 A
4379947 Warner Apr 1983 A
4380027 Leventer et al. Apr 1983 A
4389671 Posner et al. Jun 1983 A
4395600 Lundy et al. Jul 1983 A
4416001 Ackerman Nov 1983 A
4423415 Goldman Dec 1983 A
4425642 Moses et al. Jan 1984 A
4476468 Goldman Oct 1984 A
4528588 Löfberg Jul 1985 A
4532508 Ruell Jul 1985 A
4547804 Greenberg Oct 1985 A
4553261 Froessl Nov 1985 A
4590366 Rothfjell May 1986 A
4595950 Lofberg Jun 1986 A
4618257 Bayne et al. Oct 1986 A
4637051 Clark Jan 1987 A
4639779 Greenberg Jan 1987 A
4647974 Butler et al. Mar 1987 A
4654867 Labedz et al. Mar 1987 A
4660221 Dlugos Apr 1987 A
4663518 Borror et al. May 1987 A
4665431 Cooper May 1987 A
4672605 Hustig et al. Jun 1987 A
4675746 Tetrick et al. Jun 1987 A
4677435 Cause D'Agraives et al. Jun 1987 A
4682794 Margolin Jul 1987 A
4689477 Goldman Aug 1987 A
4703476 Howard Oct 1987 A
4712103 Gotanda Dec 1987 A
4718106 Weinblatt Jan 1988 A
4723072 Naruse Feb 1988 A
4723149 Harada Feb 1988 A
4739377 Allen Apr 1988 A
4750173 Blüthgen Jun 1988 A
4765656 Becker et al. Aug 1988 A
4775901 Nakano Oct 1988 A
4776013 Kafri et al. Oct 1988 A
4805020 Greenberg Feb 1989 A
4807031 Broughton et al. Feb 1989 A
4811357 Betts et al. Mar 1989 A
4811408 Goldman Mar 1989 A
4820912 Samyn Apr 1989 A
4835517 van der Gracht et al. May 1989 A
4855827 Best Aug 1989 A
4864618 Wright et al. Sep 1989 A
4866771 Bain Sep 1989 A
4874936 Chandler et al. Oct 1989 A
4876617 Best et al. Oct 1989 A
4879747 Leighton et al. Nov 1989 A
4884139 Pommier Nov 1989 A
4885632 Mabey et al. Dec 1989 A
4888798 Earnest Dec 1989 A
4903301 Kondo et al. Feb 1990 A
4908836 Rushforth et al. Mar 1990 A
4908873 Philibert et al. Mar 1990 A
4918484 Ujiie et al. Apr 1990 A
4920503 Cook Apr 1990 A
4921278 Shiang et al. May 1990 A
4939515 Adelson Jul 1990 A
4941150 Iwasaki Jul 1990 A
4943973 Werner Jul 1990 A
4943976 Ishigaki Jul 1990 A
4944036 Hyatt Jul 1990 A
4947028 Gorog Aug 1990 A
4963998 Maufe Oct 1990 A
4965827 McDonald Oct 1990 A
4967273 Greenberg Oct 1990 A
4969041 O'Grady et al. Nov 1990 A
4972471 Gross et al. Nov 1990 A
4972475 Sant'Anselmo Nov 1990 A
4972476 Nathans Nov 1990 A
4977594 Shear Dec 1990 A
4979210 Nagata et al. Dec 1990 A
4996530 Hilton Feb 1991 A
5003590 Lechner et al. Mar 1991 A
5010405 Schreiber et al. Apr 1991 A
5023907 Johnson Jun 1991 A
5027401 Soltesz Jun 1991 A
5034982 Heninger et al. Jul 1991 A
5036513 Greenblatt Jul 1991 A
5040059 Leberl Aug 1991 A
5053956 Donald Oct 1991 A
5062666 Mowry et al. Nov 1991 A
5063446 Gibson Nov 1991 A
5073899 Collier et al. Dec 1991 A
5073925 Nagata et al. Dec 1991 A
5075773 Pullen et al. Dec 1991 A
5077608 Dubner Dec 1991 A
5077795 Rourke et al. Dec 1991 A
5079648 Maufe Jan 1992 A
5091966 Bloomberg et al. Feb 1992 A
5095196 Miyata Mar 1992 A
5103459 Gilhousen et al. Apr 1992 A
5113437 Best May 1992 A
5113445 Wang May 1992 A
5128525 Stearns et al. Jul 1992 A
5144660 Rose Sep 1992 A
5146457 Veldhuis et al. Sep 1992 A
5148498 Resnikoff et al. Sep 1992 A
5150409 Elsner Sep 1992 A
5161210 Druyvesteyn et al. Nov 1992 A
5166676 Milheiser Nov 1992 A
5168147 Bloomberg Dec 1992 A
5181786 Hujink Jan 1993 A
5185736 Tyrrell et al. Feb 1993 A
5199081 Saito et al. Mar 1993 A
5200822 Bronfin et al. Apr 1993 A
5212551 Conanan May 1993 A
5213337 Sherman May 1993 A
5216724 Suzuki et al. Jun 1993 A
5228056 Schilling Jul 1993 A
5237164 Takada Aug 1993 A
5243411 Shirochi et al. Sep 1993 A
5243423 DeJean et al. Sep 1993 A
5245165 Zhang Sep 1993 A
5245329 Gokcebay Sep 1993 A
5247364 Banker et al. Sep 1993 A
5253078 Balkanski et al. Oct 1993 A
5257119 Funada et al. Oct 1993 A
5259025 Monroe Nov 1993 A
5267334 Normille et al. Nov 1993 A
5280537 Sugiyama et al. Jan 1994 A
5284364 Jain Feb 1994 A
5288976 Citron Feb 1994 A
5291243 Heckman et al. Mar 1994 A
5293399 Hefti Mar 1994 A
5295203 Krause et al. Mar 1994 A
5299019 Pack et al. Mar 1994 A
5305400 Butera Apr 1994 A
5315098 Tow May 1994 A
5319453 Copriviza et al. Jun 1994 A
5319724 Blonstein et al. Jun 1994 A
5319735 Preuss et al. Jun 1994 A
5321470 Hasuo et al. Jun 1994 A
5325167 Melen Jun 1994 A
5327237 Gerdes et al. Jul 1994 A
5337361 Wang et al. Aug 1994 A
5337362 Gormish et al. Aug 1994 A
5349655 Mann Sep 1994 A
5351302 Leighton et al. Sep 1994 A
5354097 Tel Oct 1994 A
5371792 Asai et al. Dec 1994 A
5374976 Spannenburg Dec 1994 A
5379345 Greenberg Jan 1995 A
5384846 Berson et al. Jan 1995 A
5387941 Montgomery et al. Feb 1995 A
5394274 Kahn Feb 1995 A
5396559 McGrew Mar 1995 A
5398283 Virga Mar 1995 A
5404160 Schober et al. Apr 1995 A
5404377 Moses Apr 1995 A
5408542 Callahan Apr 1995 A
5416307 Danek et al. May 1995 A
5418853 Kanota et al. May 1995 A
5422963 Chen et al. Jun 1995 A
5422995 Aoki et al. Jun 1995 A
5425100 Thomas et al. Jun 1995 A
5428606 Moskowitz Jun 1995 A
5428607 Hiller et al. Jun 1995 A
5428731 Powers Jun 1995 A
5432542 Thibadeau et al. Jul 1995 A
5432870 Schwartz Jul 1995 A
5436970 Ray et al. Jul 1995 A
5446488 Vogel Aug 1995 A
5450122 Keene Sep 1995 A
5450490 Jensen et al. Sep 1995 A
5461426 Limberg et al. Oct 1995 A
5463209 Figh Oct 1995 A
5469222 Sprague Nov 1995 A
5469506 Berson et al. Nov 1995 A
5471533 Wang et al. Nov 1995 A
5473631 Moses Dec 1995 A
5479168 Johnson et al. Dec 1995 A
5481294 Thomas et al. Jan 1996 A
5488664 Shamir Jan 1996 A
5490217 Wang et al. Feb 1996 A
5493677 Bfalogh Feb 1996 A
5495581 Tsai Feb 1996 A
5496071 Walsh Mar 1996 A
5499294 Friedman Mar 1996 A
5502576 Ramsay et al. Mar 1996 A
5515081 Vasilik May 1996 A
5521722 Colvill et al. May 1996 A
5524933 Kunt et al. Jun 1996 A
5530751 Morris Jun 1996 A
5530759 Braudaway et al. Jun 1996 A
5530852 Meske, Jr. et al. Jun 1996 A
5532920 Hartrick et al. Jul 1996 A
5537223 Curry Jul 1996 A
5539471 Myhrvold et al. Jul 1996 A
5539735 Moskowitz Jul 1996 A
5541662 Adams et al. Jul 1996 A
5544255 Smithies et al. Aug 1996 A
5548646 Aziz et al. Aug 1996 A
5557333 Jungo et al. Sep 1996 A
5559559 Jungo et al. Sep 1996 A
5568179 Diehl et al. Oct 1996 A
5568550 Ur Oct 1996 A
5568570 Rabbani Oct 1996 A
5572010 Petrie Nov 1996 A
5572247 Montgomery Nov 1996 A
5576532 Hecht Nov 1996 A
5579124 Aijala et al. Nov 1996 A
5582103 Tanaka et al. Dec 1996 A
5587743 Montgomery Dec 1996 A
5590197 Chen et al. Dec 1996 A
5594226 Steger Jan 1997 A
5598526 Daniel et al. Jan 1997 A
5602920 Bestler et al. Feb 1997 A
5606609 Houser et al. Feb 1997 A
5611575 Petrie Mar 1997 A
5613004 Cooperman et al. Mar 1997 A
5613012 Hoffman et al. Mar 1997 A
5614940 Cobbley et al. Mar 1997 A
5617119 Briggs et al. Apr 1997 A
5617148 Montgomery Apr 1997 A
5629770 Brassil May 1997 A
5629980 Stefik et al. May 1997 A
5636292 Rhoads Jun 1997 A
5638443 Stefik Jun 1997 A
5638446 Rubin Jun 1997 A
5640193 Wellner Jun 1997 A
5646997 Barton Jul 1997 A
5646999 Saito Jul 1997 A
5652626 Kawakami et al. Jul 1997 A
5659164 Schmid Aug 1997 A
5659726 Sandford, II et al. Aug 1997 A
5661574 Kawana Aug 1997 A
5663766 Sizer, II Sep 1997 A
5664018 Leighton Sep 1997 A
5665951 Newman et al. Sep 1997 A
5666487 Goodman et al. Sep 1997 A
5668636 Beach et al. Sep 1997 A
5671282 Wolff et al. Sep 1997 A
5673316 Auerbach et al. Sep 1997 A
5687236 Moskowitz et al. Nov 1997 A
5694471 Chen et al. Dec 1997 A
5710636 Curry Jan 1998 A
5719939 Tel Feb 1998 A
5721788 Powell et al. Feb 1998 A
5727092 Sandford, II et al. Mar 1998 A
5735547 Morelle et al. Apr 1998 A
5740244 Indeck et al. Apr 1998 A
5742845 Wagner Apr 1998 A
5745604 Rhoads Apr 1998 A
5748763 Rhoads May 1998 A
5751854 Saitoh et al. May 1998 A
5761686 Bloomberg Jun 1998 A
5768426 Rhoads Jun 1998 A
5778102 Sandford, II et al. Jul 1998 A
5790693 Graves et al. Aug 1998 A
5790697 Munro et al. Aug 1998 A
5799092 Kristol et al. Aug 1998 A
5804803 Cragun et al. Sep 1998 A
5809160 Powell et al. Sep 1998 A
5809317 Kogan et al. Sep 1998 A
5817205 Kaule Oct 1998 A
5818441 Throckmorton et al. Oct 1998 A
5819289 Sanford, II et al. Oct 1998 A
5822436 Rhoads Oct 1998 A
5825871 Mark Oct 1998 A
5825892 Braudaway et al. Oct 1998 A
5838458 Tsai Nov 1998 A
5841886 Rhoads Nov 1998 A
5841978 Rhoads Nov 1998 A
5848144 Ahrens Dec 1998 A
5848413 Wolff Dec 1998 A
5852673 Young Dec 1998 A
5857038 Owada et al. Jan 1999 A
5862218 Steinberg Jan 1999 A
5862260 Rhoads Jan 1999 A
5864622 Marcus Jan 1999 A
5869819 Knowles et al. Feb 1999 A
5871615 Harris Feb 1999 A
5872589 Morales Feb 1999 A
5875249 Mintzer et al. Feb 1999 A
5892900 Ginter et al. Apr 1999 A
5893101 Balogh et al. Apr 1999 A
5898779 Squilla et al. Apr 1999 A
5900608 Iida May 1999 A
5902353 Reber et al. May 1999 A
5903729 Reber et al. May 1999 A
5905248 Russell et al. May 1999 A
5905251 Knowles May 1999 A
5905800 Moskowitz et al. May 1999 A
5905810 Jones et al. May 1999 A
5907149 Marckini May 1999 A
5912974 Holloway et al. Jun 1999 A
5913210 Call Jun 1999 A
5915027 Cox et al. Jun 1999 A
5930767 Reber et al. Jul 1999 A
5932863 Rathus et al. Aug 1999 A
5933798 Linnartz Aug 1999 A
5933829 Durst et al. Aug 1999 A
5938726 Reber et al. Aug 1999 A
5938727 Ikeda Aug 1999 A
5939695 Nelson Aug 1999 A
5940595 Reber et al. Aug 1999 A
5943422 Van Wie et al. Aug 1999 A
5949055 Fleet et al. Sep 1999 A
5950173 Perkowski Sep 1999 A
5951055 Mowry, Jr. Sep 1999 A
5963916 Kaplan Oct 1999 A
5971277 Cragun et al. Oct 1999 A
5974141 Saito Oct 1999 A
5974548 Adams Oct 1999 A
5978773 Hudetz et al. Nov 1999 A
5979757 Tracy et al. Nov 1999 A
5983218 Syeda-Mahmoo Nov 1999 A
5991426 Cox et al. Nov 1999 A
6005501 Wolosewicz Dec 1999 A
6024287 Takai et al. Feb 2000 A
6026193 Rhoads Feb 2000 A
6035177 Moses et al. Mar 2000 A
6052486 Knowlton et al. Apr 2000 A
6064764 Bhaskaran et al. May 2000 A
6065119 Sandford, II et al. May 2000 A
6104812 Koltai et al. Aug 2000 A
6122403 Rhoads Sep 2000 A
6166750 Negishi Dec 2000 A
6185683 Ginter et al. Feb 2001 B1
6188787 Ohmae et al. Feb 2001 B1
6226387 Tewfik et al. May 2001 B1
6233347 Chen et al. May 2001 B1
6233684 Stefik et al. May 2001 B1
6237786 Ginter et al. May 2001 B1
6240121 Senoh May 2001 B1
6243480 Zhao et al. Jun 2001 B1
6246775 Nakamura et al. Jun 2001 B1
6246777 Agarwal et al. Jun 2001 B1
6266430 Rhoads et al. Jul 2001 B1
6272176 Srinivasan Aug 2001 B1
6272634 Tewfik et al. Aug 2001 B1
6275599 Adler et al. Aug 2001 B1
6285775 Wu et al. Sep 2001 B1
6285776 Rhoads Sep 2001 B1
6289108 Rhoads Sep 2001 B1
6292092 Chow et al. Sep 2001 B1
6301360 Bocionek et al. Oct 2001 B1
6311214 Rhoads Oct 2001 B1
6314192 Chen et al. Nov 2001 B1
6314457 Schena et al. Nov 2001 B1
6321648 Berson et al. Nov 2001 B1
6321981 Ray et al. Nov 2001 B1
6324573 Rhoads Nov 2001 B1
6332031 Rhoads et al. Dec 2001 B1
6332194 Bloom et al. Dec 2001 B1
6334187 Kadono Dec 2001 B1
6343138 Rhoads Jan 2002 B1
6343204 Yang Jan 2002 B1
6359985 Koch et al. Mar 2002 B1
6398245 Gruse et al. Jun 2002 B1
6418232 Nakano et al. Jul 2002 B1
6425081 Iwamura Jul 2002 B1
6427020 Rhoads Jul 2002 B1
6427140 Ginter et al. Jul 2002 B1
6439465 Bloomberg Aug 2002 B1
6456726 Yu et al. Sep 2002 B1
6487301 Zhao Nov 2002 B1
6512837 Ahmed Jan 2003 B1
6542618 Rhoads Apr 2003 B1
6577746 Evans et al. Jun 2003 B1
6625295 Wolfgang et al. Sep 2003 B1
6636615 Rhoads et al. Oct 2003 B1
20010008557 Stefik et al. Jul 2001 A1
20010017709 Murakami et al. Aug 2001 A1
20010020270 Yeung et al. Sep 2001 A1
20010021144 Oshima et al. Sep 2001 A1
20010024510 Iwamura Sep 2001 A1
20010026377 Ikegami Oct 2001 A1
20010026629 Oki Oct 2001 A1
20010028725 Nakagawa et al. Oct 2001 A1
20010028727 Naito et al. Oct 2001 A1
20010030759 Hayashi et al. Oct 2001 A1
20010047478 Mase Nov 2001 A1
20010051996 Cooper et al. Dec 2001 A1
20010052076 Kadano Dec 2001 A1
20010053235 Sato Dec 2001 A1
20010053299 Matsunoshita et al. Dec 2001 A1
20010054144 Epstein et al. Dec 2001 A1
20020001095 Kawakami et al. Jan 2002 A1
20020003891 Hoshino Jan 2002 A1
20020009208 Alattar et al. Jan 2002 A1
20020010684 Moskowitz Jan 2002 A1
20020015509 Nakamura et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020018228 Torigoe Feb 2002 A1
20020023148 Ritz et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020033844 Levy et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020037091 Terasaki Mar 2002 A1
20020037093 Murphy Mar 2002 A1
20020051237 Ohara May 2002 A1
20020061121 Rhoads et al. May 2002 A1
20020061122 Fujihara et al. May 2002 A1
20020064298 Rhoads et al. May 2002 A1
20020064759 Durbin et al. May 2002 A1
20020067914 Schurmann et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020068987 Hars Jun 2002 A1
20020071556 Moskowitz et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020073317 Hars Jun 2002 A1
20020080396 Silverbrook et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020095577 Nakamura et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020097873 Petrovic Jul 2002 A1
20020097891 Hinishi Jul 2002 A1
20020105679 Haynes Aug 2002 A1
20020112171 Ginter et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020114458 Belenko et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020122568 Zhao Sep 2002 A1
20020176114 Zeller et al. Nov 2002 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (72)
Number Date Country
2235002 Dec 1998 CA
29 43 436 May 1981 DE
3806411 Sep 1989 DE
19521969 Feb 1997 DE
366381 Oct 1989 EP
372 601 Jun 1990 EP
411 232 Feb 1991 EP
418 964 Mar 1991 EP
441 702 Aug 1991 EP
493 091 Jul 1992 EP
058 482 Aug 1992 EP
551 016 Jul 1993 EP
581 317 Feb 1994 EP
605 208 Jul 1994 EP
629 972 Dec 1994 EP
649 074 Apr 1995 EP
705 025 Apr 1996 EP
711061 May 1996 EP
0789480 Aug 1997 EP
872995 Oct 1998 EP
0642060 Apr 1999 EP
642060 Apr 1999 EP
642 060 Apr 1999 EP
975 147 Jan 2000 EP
1041815 Oct 2000 EP
1077570 Feb 2001 EP
1122939 Aug 2001 EP
1202250 May 2002 EP
2063018 May 1981 GB
2067871 Jul 1981 GB
2196167 Apr 1988 GB
2204984 Nov 1988 GB
2346110 Aug 2000 GB
3-185585 Aug 1991 JP
4-248771 Feb 1992 JP
5242217 Sep 1993 JP
8-30759 Feb 1996 JP
WO 8908915 Sep 1989 WO
WO 9325038 Dec 1993 WO
WO9427228 Nov 1994 WO
WO9504665 Feb 1995 WO
WO9510813 Apr 1995 WO
WO 9510835 Apr 1995 WO
WO9513597 May 1995 WO
WO 9514289 May 1995 WO
WO 9520291 Jul 1995 WO
WO 9626494 Aug 1996 WO
WO 9627259 Sep 1996 WO
WO9743736 Nov 1997 WO
WO9814887 Apr 1998 WO
WO9820411 May 1998 WO
WO9820642 May 1998 WO
WO9824050 Jun 1998 WO
WO9840823 Sep 1998 WO
WO9849813 Nov 1998 WO
WO9934277 Jul 1999 WO
WO9936876 Jul 1999 WO
WO0044131 Jul 2000 WO
WO0105075 Jan 2001 WO
WO 0108405 Feb 2001 WO
WO0139121 May 2001 WO
WO0173997 Oct 2001 WO
WO0176253 Oct 2001 WO
WO 0180169 Oct 2001 WO
WO0197128 Dec 2001 WO
WO0207425 Jan 2002 WO
WO0207442 Jan 2002 WO
WO0217631 Feb 2002 WO
WO0219589 Mar 2002 WO
WO0225599 Mar 2002 WO
WO0237309 May 2002 WO
WO0256264 Jul 2002 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (148)
Entry
Cox et al., “Secure Spread Spectrum Watermarking for Images, Audio, and Video,” IEEE1996, pp. 243-246.
Dautzenberg, “Watermarking Images,” Department of Microelectronics and Electrical Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, 47 pages, Oct. 1994.
Dittmann, J., “Chapter 3: Telltale Watermarking,” in Multiresolution Digital Watermarking: Algorithms and Implications for Multimedia Signals, Ph.D. thesis at Univ. of Toronto, 1999, pp. 23-52.
Dittmann, J. et al., “Content-based Digital Signature for Motion Pictures Authentication and Content-Fragile Watermarking,” IEEE Proc. Int. Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Systems, Jun. 1999, pp. 209-213.
Kundur et al., “A Robust Digital Image Watermarking Method and Wavelet-Based Fusion,” IEEE Jul. 1997, pp. 544,547.
Lamy, P. et al., “Content-Based Watermarking for Image Authentication,” Proc. 3.sup.rd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, Sep./Oct. 1999, pp. 187-198.
Lin, C.-Y. et al., “Generating Robust Digital Signature for Image/Video Authentication,” Proc. Multimedia and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia'98, Sep. 1998, pp. 49-54.
Lin, C.-Y. et al., “Issues and Solutions for Authenticating MPEG Video,” Proc. SPIE vol. 3657: Security and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents, Jan. 1999, pp. 54-65.
Schneider, M., “A Robust Content Based Digital Signature for Image Authentication,” IEEE Proc. Int. Conf. on Image Processing, Sep. 1996, pp. 227-230 (vol. 3).
Sharma et al., “Practical Challenges For Digital Watermarking Applications”, May 3, 2001, pp. 1-10.
Szepanski, “A Signal Theoretic Method for Creating Forgery-Proof Documents for Automatic Verification,” Proceedings 1979 Carnahan Conference on Crime Countermeasures, May 16, 1979, pp. 101-109.
Szepanski, “Additive Binary Data Transmission for Video Signals,” Conference of the Communications Engineering Society, 1980, NTG Technical Reports, vol. 74, pp. 343-351. (German text and English translation enclosed).
Xie, L. et al., “Secure MPEG Video Communications by Watermarking,” Proc. Conf. of ATIRP (Advanced Telecommunications and Information Distribution Research Project), Feb. 1999, pp. 459-462.
Brassil et al., Electronic Marking and Identification Techniques to Discourage Document Copying, Proceedings of INFOCOM '94 Conference on Computer, IEEE Commun. Soc Conference, Jun. 12-16, 1994, 1278-1287.
Bruckstein, A.M.; Richardson, T.J., A holographic transform domain image watermarking method, Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing vol. 17, No. 3 p. 361-389, 1998. This paper includes an appendix containing an internal memo of Bell Labs, which according to the authors of the paper, was dated Sep. 1994.
“High Water FBI Limited Presentation Image Copyright protection Software,” FBI Ltd brochure, Jul., 1995, 17 pages.
Koch et al., “Copyright Protection for Multimedia Data,” Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics, Dec. 16, 1994, 15 pages.
Koch et al., “Towards Robust and Hidden Image Copyright Labeling,” Proc. of 1995 IEEE Workshop on Nonlinear Signal and Image Processing, Jun. 20-22, 1995, 4 pages.
Kurak et al., “A Cautionary Note On Image Downgrading,” 1992 IEEE, pp. 153-159.
Mintzer et al., “Safeguarding Digital library Contents and Users” Digital Watermarking, D-Lib Magazine, Dec. 1997: ISSN 1082-9873.
Rindfrey, “Towards an Equitable System for Access Control and Copyright Protection in Broadcast Image Services: The Equicrypt Approach,” Intellectual Property Rights and New Technologies, Proc. of the Conference, R. Oldenbourg Verlag Wien Munchen 1995, 12 pages.
Schreiber et al., “A Compatible High-Definition Television System Using the Noise-Margin Method of Hiding Enhancement Information,” SMPTE Journal, Dec. 1989, pp. 873-879.
SDMI Example Use Scenarios (Non-Exhaustive), Version 1.2, Jun. 16, 1999.
Szepanski, “A Signal Theoretic Method for Creating Forgery-Proof Documents for Automatic Verification,” Proceedings 1979 Carnahan Conference on Crime Countermeasures, May 16, 1979, pp. 101-109.
Szepanski, “Additive Binary Data Transmission for Video Signals,” Papers Presented at Conf. Of Comm. Engineering Soc. Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 1980, Technical Reports vol. 74, pp. 342-352.
Tanaka et al., “A Visual Retrieval System with Private Information for Image Database,” Proceeding International Conference on DSP Applications and Technology, Oct. 1991, pp. 415-421.
Tanaka et al., “New Integrated Coding Schemes for Computer-Aided Facsimile,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Sys. Integration, Apr. 1990, pp. 275-281.
Tirkel et al, “Electronic Water Mark,” DICTA-93, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, Dec., 1993, pp. 666-673.
Weber et al., “Correlative Image Registration,” Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, vol. XXIV, No. 4, Oct., 1994, pp. 311-323.
Szepanski, “A Signal Theoretic Method for Creating Forgery-Proof Documents for Automatic Verification,” Proceedings 1979 Carnahan Conference on Crime Countermeasures, May 16, 1979, pp. 101-109.
Dautzenberg, “Watermarking Images,” Department of Microelectronics and Electrical Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, 47 pages, Oct. 1994.
Szepanski, “Additive Binary Data Transmission for Video Signals,” Conference of the Communications Engineering Society, 1980, NTG Technical Reports, vol. 74, pp. 343-351. (German text and English translation enclosed).
Cookson, Chris, General Principles of Music Uses on Portable Devices, presented to SDMI, Mar. 5, 1999.
Winograd, J.M., “Audio Watermarking Architecture for Secure Digital Music Distribution,” a Proposal to the SDMI Portable Devices Working Group, by Aris Technologies, Inc., Mar. 26, 1999.
Mintzer et al., “Safeguarding Digital Library Contents and Users: Digital Watermarking,” D-Lib Magazine, Dec. 1997, 12 pages.
Audio Watermarking Architectures for Secure Digital Music Distribution, A Proposal to the SDMI Portable Devices Working Group by ARIS Technologies, Inc, Mar. 26, 1999, pp. 1-11.
Audio Watermarking Architectures for Persistent Protection, Presentation to SDMI PDWG, Mar. 29, 1999, J. Winograd, Aris Technologies, pp 1-16.
Audio Watermarking System to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance, A Proposal Submitted in Response to PDWG99050504-Transition CfP by ARIS Technologies, Inc., May 23, 1999, Document Version 1.0, 15 pages.
Boland et al., “Watermarking Digital Images for Copyright Protection”, Fifth Int'l Conference on Image Processing and it's Application, Jul. 1995, pp. 326-330.
Levy, “AIPL's Proposal for SDMI: An Underlying Security System” (slide presentation), Mar. 29, 1999, 23 slides.
Microsoft Response for CfP for Technology Solutions to Screen Digital Audio Contents for LCM Acceptance, SDMI, PDWG Tokyo, May 23, 1999, 9 pages.
Response to CfP for Technology Solutions to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance, NTT Waveless Radio Consotium, May 23, 1999, 9 pages.
Sandford II et al., “The Data Embedding Method”, Proceedings of the SPIE vol. 2615, pp. 226-259, 1996.
Thomas, Keith, Screening Technology for Content from Compact Discs, May 24, 1999, 11 pages.
Tirkel et al., “Electronic Water Mark,” Dicta-93, Marquarie University, Sydney, Australia, Dec., 1993, pp. 666-672.
Vidal et al., “Non-Noticeable Information Embedding in Color Images: Marking and Detection”, IEEE 1999, pp. 293-297.
Wolfgang et al., “A Watermark for Digital Images,” Computer Vision and Image Processing Laboratory, Purdue University, Sep. 1996, pp. 219-222.
“Access Control and COpyright Protection for Images, WorkPackage 8: Watermarking,” Jun. 30, 1995, 46 pages.
“Access Control and COpyright Protection for Images, WorkPackage 3: Evaluation of Existing Systems,” Apr. 19, 1995, 68 pages.
“Access Control and COpyright Protection for Images, WorkPackage 1: Access Control and Copyright Protection for Images Need Evaluation,” Jun., 1995, 21 pages.
“Access Control and COpyright Protection for Images, Conditional Access and Copyright Protection Based on the Use of Trusted Third Parties,” 1995, 43 pages.
Arachelian, “White Noise Storm,” Apr. 11, 1994, Internet reference, 13 pages.
Arazi, et al., “Intuition, Perception, and Secure Communication,” IEEE Transactionson Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 19, No. 5, Sep./Oct. 1989, pp. 1016-1020.
Arthur, “Digital Fingerprints Protect Artwork,” New Scientist, Nov. 12, 1994, p. 24.
Aura, “Invisible Communication,” Helskinki University of Technology, Digital Systems Laboratory, Nov. 5, 1995, 13 pages.
Bender et al, “Techniques for Data Hiding,” Draft Preprint, Private Correspondence, dated Oct. 30, 1995.
Bender et al., “Techniques for Data Hiding,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Jan. 1995, 10 pages.
Boneh, “Collusion-Secure Fingerprinting for Digital Data,” Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, 1995, 31 pages.
Boney et al., “Digital Watermarks for Audio Signals,” Proceedings of Multimedia '96, 1996 IEEE, pp. 473-480.
Boucqueau et al., Equitable Conditional Access and Copyright Protection for Image Based on Trusted Third Parties, Teleservices & Multimedia Communications, 2nd Int. Cost 237 Workshop, Second International Cost 237 Workshop, Nov., 1995; published 1996, pp. 229-243.
Brassil et al., “Hiding Information in Document Images,” Nov., 1995, 7 pages.
Brown, “S-Tools for Windows, Version 1.00, .COPYRGT. 1994 Andy Brown, What is Steganography,” Internet reference, Mar. 6, 1994, 6 pages.
Bruyndonckx et al., Neural Network Post-Processing of Coded Images Using Perceptual Masking, 1994, 3 pages.
Bruyndonckx et al., “Spatial Method for Copyright Labeling of Digital Images,” 1994, 6 pages.
Burgett et al., “A Novel Method for Copyright Labeling Digitized Image Data,” requested by e-mail from author (unavailable/password protected on IGD WWW site); received Sep. 18, 1995, 12 pages.
Caronni, “Assuring Ownership Rights for Digital Images,” Published in the Proceedings of ‘Reliable IT Systems,’ VIS '95, HH. Bruggemann and W. Gerhardt-Hackl (Ed.), Vieweg Publishing Company, Germany, 1995, Jun. 14, 1994, 10 pages.
Caruso, “Digital Commerce, 2 plans for watermarks, which can bind proof of authorship to electronic works.” New York Times, Aug. 7, 1995, one page.
Castro et al., “Registration of Translated and Rotated Images Using Finite Fourier Transforms,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. PAMI-9, No. 5, Sep. 1987, pp. 700-703.
Choudhury, et al., “Copyright Protection for Electronic Publishing over Computer Networks,” IEEE Network Magazine, Jun. 1994, 18 pages.
Clarke, “Invisible Code Tags Electronic Images,” Electronic Engineering Times, Jun. 12, 1995, n. 852, p. 42.
“Copyright Protection for Digital Images, Digital Fingerprinting from FBI,” Highwater FBI brochure, 1995, 4 pages.
“The Copyright Can of Worms Opened Up By The New Electronic Media,” Computergram Internations, pCGN07170006, Jul. 17, 1995 and “The Copyright Can of Worms Opened Up By the New Electronic Media—2,” Computergram Internations, pCGN07210008, Jul. 21, 1995, 3 pages total.
Cox et al., “Secure Spread Spectrum Watermarking for Multimedia,” NEC Research Institute Technical Report, Dec. 5, 1995, 33 pages.
Cox et al., “A Secure, Imperceptable Yet Perceptually Salient, Spread Spectrum Watermark for Multimedia,” IEEE, Southcon/96, Conference Record, pp. 192-197, 1996.
“Cyphertech Systems: Introduces Digital Encoding Device to Prevent TV Piracy,” Hollywood Reporter, Oct. 20, 1993, p. 23.
Delaigle et al., “Digital Watermarking,” Proc. SPIE—Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., vol. 2659, pp. 99-110, 1996.
Delaigle et al., “A Psychovisual Approach for Digital Picture Watermarking,” 1995, 20 pages.
DICE Digital Watermark System, Q&A, Dec., 1995, 12 pages.
Digimarc presentation at RSA Conference, approximately Jan. 17, 1996, 4 pages.
Fimmerstad, “The Virtual Art Museum,” Ericsson Connexion, Dec., 1995, pp. 29-31.
Fitzgerald, “Invisible Digital Copyright ID,” Editor & Publisher, Jun. 25, 1994, p. 62.
“Foiling Card Forgers With Magnetic ‘Noise,’” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1994.
Frequently Asked Questions About Digimarc Signature Technology, Aug. 1, 1995, HTTP://WWW.DIGIMARC.COM, 9 pages.
Friedman, “The Trustworthy Digital Camera: Restoring Credibility to the Photographic Image,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 39, No. 4, Nov., 1993, pp. 905-910.
Gabor, et al., “Theory of Communication,” J. Inst. Elect. Eng. 93, 1946, pp. 429-441.
Hartung et al., Digital Watermarking of Raw and Compressed Video, Proc. SPIE 2952, Digital Compression Technologies and Systems for Video Communications, Oct., 1996, pp 205-213.
Hecht, “Embedded Data Glyph Technology for Hardcopy Digital Documents,” SPIE vol. 2171, Feb. 1994, pp. 341-352.
“Holograhic signatures for ditigal images,” The Seybold Report on Desktop Publishing, Aug. 1995, one page.
Humphrey, “Stamping Out Crime,” Hollywood Reporter, Jan. 26, 1994, p. S48.
Jain, “Image Coding Via a Nearest Neighbors Image Model,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. COM-23, No. 3, Mar. 1975, pp. 318-331.
Johhnson, “Steganography,” Dec. 10, 1995, 32 pages.
JPEG Group's JPEG Software (release 4), FTP.CSUA.BEREKELEY.EDU/PUB/CYPHERPUNKS/APPLICATIONS/ JSTEG/JPEG.ANNOUNCEMENT.GZ.
Kassam, Signal Detection in Non-Gaussian Noise, Dowden & Culver, 1988, pp. 1-96.
Koch et al., “Digital Copyright Labeling: Providing Evidence of Misuse and Tracking Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Materials,” Oasis Magazine, Dec. 1995, 3 pages.
Luc, “Analysis of Spread Spectrum System Parameters for Design of Hidden Transmission,” Radioengineering, vol. 4, No. 2, Jun. 1995, pp. 26-29.
Machado, “Announcing Stego 1.0a2, The First Steganography Tool for the Macintosh,” Internet reference, Nov. 28, 1993, 3 pages.
Macq, “Cryptology for Digital TV Broadcasting,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 83, No. 6, Jun. 1995, pp. 944-957.
Matthews, “When Seeing is Not Believing,” New Scientist, Oct. 16, 1993, pp. 13-15.
Matsui et al., “Video-Steganography: How to Secretly Embed a Signature in a Picture,” IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, Jan. 1994, vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 187-205.
Mintzer et al., “Toward on-line, Worldwide Access to Vatican Library Materials,” IBM J. Res. Develop. vol. 40 No. 2, Mar., 1996, pp. 139-162.
Moller, et al., “Rechnergestutzte Steganographie: Wie sie Funktioniert und warum folglich jede Reglementierung von Verschlusselung unsinnig ist,” DuD, Datenschutz und Datensicherung, Jun. 18, 1994 318-326.
“NAB—Cyphertech Starts Anti-Piracy Broadcast Tests,” Newsbytes, NEW03230023, Mar. 23, 1994.
Nakamura et al., “A Unified Coding Method of Image and Text Data Using Discrete Orthogonal Transform,” Systems and Computers in Japan, vol. 21, No. 3, 1990, pp. 87-92.
Nakamura et al., “A Unified Coding Method of Dithered Image and Text Data Using Micropatterns,” Electronics and Communications in Japan, Part 1, vol. 72, No. 4, 1989, pp. 50-56.
New Product Information, “FBI at AppleExpo” (Olympia, London), Nov., 1995, 2 pages.
Ohnishi et al., Embedding a Seal into a Picture Under Orthogonal Wavelet Transform, Proceedings of Multimedia '96, 1996, IEEE, pp. 514-421.
ORuanaidh et al, “Watermarking Ditigal Images for Copyright Protection,” http://www.kalman.mee.tcd.ie/people/jjr/eva.sub.—pap.html, Feb. 2, 1996, 8 pages (Also published Aug., 1996, IEE Proceedings-Vision, Image and Signal Processing, vol . 143, No. 4, pp. 250-256.).
Pennebaker et al., JPEG Still Image Data Compression Standard, Chapter 3, “Aspects of the Human Visual System,” pp. 23-27, 1993, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Pickholtz et al., “Theory of Spread-Spectrum Communications—A Tutorial,” Transactions on Communications, vol. COM-30, No. 5, May, 1982, pp. 855-884.
Pitas et al., “Applying Signatures on Digital Images,” IEEE Workshop on Nonlinear Image and Signal Processing, Neos Marmaras, Greece, pp. 460-463, Jun., 1995.
Port, “Halting Highway Robbery on the Internet,” Business Week, Oct. 17, 1994, p. 212.
Roberts, “Picture Coding Using Pseudorandom Noise,” IRE Trans. on Information Theory, vol. 8, No. 2, Feb., 1962, pp. 145-154.
Sapwater et al., “Electronic Copyright Protection,” Photo>Electronic Imaging, vol. 37, No. 6, 1994, pp. 16-21.
Schneier, “Digital Signatures, Cryptographic Algorithms Can Create Nonforgeable Signatures for Electronic Documents, Making Them Valid Legal Instruments” BYTE, Nov. 1993, pp. 309-312.
shaggy@phantom.com, “Hide and Seek v. 4.0,” Internet reference, Apr. 10, 1994, 3 pages.
Short, “Steps Toward Unmasking Secure Communications,” International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 4, No. 4, 1994, pp. 959-977.
Simmons, “Subliminal Channels; Past and Present,” ETT, vol. 5, No. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1994, pp. 45-59.
Sheng et al., “Experiments on Pattern Recognition Using Invariant Fourier-Mellin Descriptors,” Journal of Optical Society of America, vol. 3, No. 6, Jun., 1986, pp. 771-776.
Skylar, “A Structured Overview of Digital Communications—a Tutorial Review—Part I,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Aug., 1983, pp. 1-17.
Skylar, “A Structured Overview of Digital Communications—a Tutorial Review—Part II,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Oct., 1983, pp. 6-21.
“Steganography,” Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Sep. 1995, pp. 212-213.
Tanaka et al., “Embedding Secret Information Into a Dithered Multi-Level Image,” Proc. IEEE Military Comm. Conf., Sep. 1990, pp. 216-220.
Tanaka, “Embedding the Attribute Information Into a Dithered Image,” Systems and Computers in Japan, vol. 21, No. 7, 1990, pp. 43-50.
Tirkel et al., “A Two-Dimensional Digital Watermark,” 1995, 6 pages.
Toga et al., “Registration Revisited,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 48 (1993), pp. 1-13.
van Schyndel et al., “Towards a Robust Digital Watermark,” ACCV '95, vol. 2, Dec., 1995, pp. 504-508.
Wagner, “Fingerprinting,” 1983 IEEE, pp. 18-22.
Walton, “Image Authentication for a Slippery New Age,” Dr. Dobb's Journal, Apr. 1995, pp. 18-26, 82-87.
“Watermarking & Digital Signature: Protect Your Work!” Published on Internet 1996, http://Itswww.epfl.ch/.about.jordan/watermarking.html.
Wise, “The History of Copyright, Photographers' Rights Span Three Centuries,” Photo>Electronic Imaging, vol. 37, No. 6, 1994.
van Schyndel et al., “A Digital Watermark,” IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Nov. 13-16, 1994, pp. 86-90.
Zhao et al., “Embedding Robust Labels Into Images for Copyright Protection,” Proc. of the International Congress on Intellectual Property Rights for Specialized Information, Knowledge and New Technologies (Vienna, Austria) Aug. 21-25, 1995, 10 pages.
Bender, “Applications for Data Hiding,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 39, No. 3-4, pp. 547-568, 2000.
Gruhl et al., “Information Hiding to Foil the Casual Counterfeiter,” Proc. 2d Information Hiding Workshop, LNCS vol. 1525, pp. 1-15 (Apr. 15, 1998).
Arthur, “Digital Fingerprints Protect Artwork,” New Scientist, Nov. 12, 1994, p. 24.
Bender et al., “Applications for Data Hiding,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 39, Nos. 3&4, 2000, pp. 547-568.
Yeung et al., “Digital Watermarks: Shedding Light on the Invisible,” Nov.-Dec. 1998, IEEE Micro vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 32-41.
EMI “Screening Content from Compact Discs: ID Trac,” SDMII Jun. 3, 1999, 13 pages.
van Schyndel et al., “Towards a Robust Digital Watermark,” ACCV '95, vol. 2, Dec., 1995, pp. 504-508.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/433,104, Rhoads et al., filed Nov. 3, 1999.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/234,780, Rhoads et al., filed Jan. 20, 1999.
U.S. provisional application Ser. No. 60/071,983, Rhoads, filed Jan. 20, 1998.
Chow et al., “Forgery and Tamper-Proof Identification Document,” IEEE Proc. 1993 Int. Carnahan Conf. on Security Technology, Oct. 13-15, 1993, pp. 11-14.
Kawaguchi et al., “Principle and Applications of BPCS-Steganography,” Proc. SPIE vol. 3528: Multimedia Systems and Applications, Nov. 2-4, 1998, pp. 464-473.
Komatsu et al., “Authentication System Using Concealed Image in Telematics,” Memoirs of the School of Science & Engineering, Waseda Univ., No. 52, 1988, pp. 45-60.
Komatsu et al., “A Proposal on Digital Watermarking in Document Image Communication and Its Application to Realizing a Signature,” Electronics and Communications in Japan, Part I, vol., 73, No. 5, 1990, pp. 22-23.
Seybold Report on desktop Publishing, “Holographic Signatures for Digital Images,” Aug., 1995, I page.
Szepanski, “A Signal Theoretic Method For Creating Forgery-Proof Documents For Automatic Verification”, 1979 Carnahan Conference on Crime Countermeasures, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, May 16-18, 1979.
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60/071983 Jan 1998 US
Continuations (3)
Number Date Country
Parent 09/433104 Nov 1999 US
Child 10/012703 US
Parent 08/951858 Oct 1997 US
Child 09/442440 US
Parent 08/436134 May 1995 US
Child 08/951858 US
Continuation in Parts (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 09/234780 Jan 1999 US
Child 09/433104 US
Parent 09/442440 Nov 1999 US
Child 09/234780 US